General

Re: Wikileaks

Johnny Doe — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:29:36 GMT

liberty student:
Johnny Doe:
I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".
But what relevance does that have to anything?

These are the previous posts:

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.

Johnny Doe:
I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
I don't think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories. What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism. I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China. But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise....

Johnny Doe:
European nation states("conflict resolution institutions") didn`t limit themselves in the last millenium...

Andrew Cain:
I'm sorry but you seem to be implying that European nation states are private institutions. Am I reading this correctly?

Johnny Doe:
I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".

Re: Wikileaks

liberty student — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:58:31 GMT

Johnny Doe:
I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".

But what relevance does that have to anything?

Re: Wikileaks

Johnny Doe — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:48:21 GMT

Andrew Cain:
I'm sorry but you seem to be implying that European nation states are private institutions. Am I reading this correctly?

I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".

Re: Wikileaks

Andrew Cain — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:20:36 GMT

'European nation states("conflict resolution institutions") didn`t limit themselves in the last millenium...'

I'm sorry but you seem to be implying that European nation states are private institutions. Am I reading this correctly?

Re: Wikileaks

Johnny Doe — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:13:30 GMT

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
No, but I am sure that winners rise and losers fall in markets. (Not to say that is inherently bad but...) This will create large exploitable gaps between the have's and have-not's. And people are prone to protect their interests.

But without a coercive government it would be difficult to create inequalities as large as those we have today.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
I believe the early history of the US is widely recognized as an example of laissez faire minimalism.

But that doesn`t mean it was laissez-faire, just that there were fewer regulations than we have today(link).

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
I don't think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories. What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism. I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China. But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise....

European nation states("conflict resolution institutions") didn`t limit themselves in the last millenium...

Re: Wikileaks

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:18:17 GMT

In an ancap society, i.e. no coercive central planning/regulations/moral hazards/distortive incentives etc, i.e. are you sure everything would be the same as today

No, but I am sure that winners rise and losers fall in markets. (Not to say that is inherently bad but...) This will create large exploitable gaps between the have's and have-not's. And people are prone to protect their interests.

So when/where has there been a minarchy

I believe the early history of the US is widely recognized as an example of laissez faire minimalism.

I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

I don't think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories. What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism. I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China. But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise....

Re: Wikileaks

liberty student — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:56:22 GMT

Johnny Doe:
I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

Statism is definitely not the way to go.

Re: Wikileaks

Johnny Doe — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:05:21 GMT

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
The profit motive... ? The business model...? The market structure...?

In an ancap society, i.e. no coercive central planning/regulations/moral hazards/distortive incentives etc, i.e. are you sure everything would be the same as today?

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
Laissez faire is not ancap. I would think Laissez faire implies minimalism, in historical context.

So when/where has there been a minarchy?

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.

I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

Re: Wikileaks

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:30:52 GMT

What`s this based on?

The profit motive... ? The business model...? The market structure...?

When/where have there been laissez-faire?

Do you see laissez-faire as the absence of all coercion/force, or just public c/f, i.e. would you consider a society where there were no government, but private institutions that initiated c/f, as laissez-faire?

Laissez faire is not ancap. I would think Laissez faire implies minimalism, in historical context.

But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.

Re: Wikileaks

Johnny Doe — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:57:02 GMT

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
People will get extremely wealthy (and therefore influential) and use that power to protect themselves against competition.

What`s this based on?

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
Once again, I have no examples of ancap to use. But I have plenty of examples of laissez faire that exactly fit that model.

When/where have there been laissez-faire?

Re: Wikileaks

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:43:23 GMT

Fiat-purchasing power or free(literally) market purchasing power?

Both. Tho I think market purchasing power is more progressive than fiat in most circumstances (if not all).

Yes, and you have yet to offer anything even close to a consistent basis for such justifications, apart from your personal feeling of approval or disgust on a case by case basis.

I could submit that everyone in existence does the same. Even the NAP is a fickle mistress, prone to the fancy of irrational people.

More open to tyranny then what? The "will of the people"? Sure about that -- being that you're so fond of historical examples?

I think the democratic process has shown itself to be more efficient, progressive, and stable than all pasts methods. I have no example of an ancap society, but it is my feeling that it would not/could not work. People will get extremely wealthy (and therefore influential) and use that power to protect themselves against competition. Once again, I have no examples of ancap to use. But I have plenty of examples of laissez faire that exactly fit that model.

Re: Wikileaks

Laotzu del Zinn — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:37:54 GMT

I agree. I was hoping there was a new angle somewhere there -- something I hadn't thought about, so wanted to make it easier for it to get uncovered. Seems there's nothing there, though. From what I could gather, the best basis he could provide is whatever made him feel better or less disgusted about each outcome on a case by case basis.

What more can I offer? You propose their is an objective way to structure societies to it's maximum capacity? If so, I think you're being idealist. Rothbard once said something about not basing your system off the outliers.... I think that is entirely backwards. Human societies are naturally fickle, we can only decide on a case-by-case basis, and from that build general patterns to follow.

So after a horrible fight with his wife one night, he sees a guy on a bicycle eating ice-cream and riding past a disabled person in a wheel-chair, and he's disgusted by a "system" that allows the satisfied biker to just ride off without helping the disabled, a "system" that has not taxed away the ice-cream from the healthy biker and given it to the disabled. Then another day, after a good night of sex, he sees a guy in a Porsche driving by a disabled person, and thinks nothing of it, as all is good with the world.

I see after failing to bait me into a false position (straw man-ing me) you revert to the timeless ad hominem.

Quite a refreshing perspective.

EiK.

Re: Wikileaks

Johnny Doe — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:37:28 GMT

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
(And I definitely see purchasing power as decision maker [ancap] as more open to tyranny)

Fiat-purchasing power or free(literally) market purchasing power?

Re: Wikileaks

z1235 — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:44:39 GMT

Epicurus:
Did the bread make them sick?

No.

The question is, is one's justifications valid?

Yes, and you have yet to offer anything even close to a consistent basis for such justifications, apart from your personal feeling of approval or disgust on a case by case basis.

And I definitely see purchasing power as decision maker [ancap] as more open to tyranny.

More open to tyranny then what? The "will of the people"? Sure about that -- being that you're so fond of historical examples?

Re: Wikileaks

z1235 — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:31:57 GMT

Liberty Student:
Z, you're debating him wrong. The only way to make progress with EiK is to leave it at this.

What do you think would be a better basis for decision making processes?

I agree. I was hoping there was a new angle somewhere there -- something I hadn't thought about, so wanted to make it easier for it to get uncovered. Seems there's nothing there, though. From what I could gather, the best basis he could provide is whatever made him feel better or less disgusted about each outcome on a case by case basis.

So after a horrible fight with his wife one night, he sees a guy on a bicycle eating ice-cream and riding past a disabled person in a wheel-chair, and he's disgusted by a "system" that allows the satisfied biker to just ride off without helping the disabled, a "system" that has not taxed away the ice-cream from the healthy biker and given it to the disabled. Then another day, after a good night of sex, he sees a guy in a Porsche driving by a disabled person, and thinks nothing of it, as all is good with the world.

Quite a refreshing perspective.